Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Handelsregister

by io.github.jkbngb
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Dataset coverage per country

get_coverage
Read-onlyIdempotent

Beispiel: „Für welche deutschen Bundesländer liegen Jahresabschlüsse vor?“

Dataset coverage and the capability matrix, per country. Read-only. CALL THIS FIRST before concluding that something does not exist in a country.

    Parameters:
    - country (optional, default "all"): "AT" | "DE" | "all" - which countries to include.

    Returns {countries: {<code>: <that backend's coverage payload>}, capabilities,
    countries_unavailable}. Each country section is the country backend's own coverage
    dashboard (AT: parsed-financials counts by format/status; DE: per-Bundesland counts
    + fill rates - the DE backfill is still running, so a low count means "not crawled
    yet", not "does not exist"). ``capabilities`` is the machine-readable matrix of what
    each country supports (financials, documents, events windows, filters); a country
    that cannot be reached appears under ``countries_unavailable`` with the error
    instead of failing the whole call. For valid filter values use describe_fields;
    for per-company data use search_companies.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_coverage"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countryNoall

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description still adds real substance: partial-failure semantics via countries_unavailable instead of a whole-call failure, and the caveat that DE counts are low because backfill is still running — a genuinely non-obvious interpretation risk.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the imperative usage rule, then parameters, then returns — good ordering. However, an output schema exists, so the long return-value walkthrough partly duplicates structured data; only the partial-failure and backfill caveats genuinely earn their space there.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotations, nothing an agent needs is missing: valid values, default, expected result shape, failure behavior, and the data-freshness caveat are all covered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single property has no enum declared, so the description carries the full burden — and it does, naming the accepted values "AT" | "DE" | "all" plus the default. Without this the agent would have no way to know valid inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource (dataset coverage and capability matrix) with a scope qualifier (per country) and flags read-only. The imperative "CALL THIS FIRST before concluding that something does not exist in a country" makes its distinct role against siblings like search_companies unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when to call it (before concluding absence of data) and names the alternatives for adjacent needs: describe_fields for valid filter values and search_companies for per-company data. Both the when and the when-not are present.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Handelsregister toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources